Am I the only one....?

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 4:43 pm

Am I the only one intrigued by the idea of integrating downtown KCMO and KCK into one greater downtown area. It was brought up on 810 that the nature trails will link the cities. But could you imagine if Downtown Kansas City stretched from 18th and Vine all the way to Minnesota Ave? Each stretch with it's own unique flavor, pedestrian friendly (need I even say it?) linked with mass transit across the entire area. Now that's a downtown!!!!

Oh yeah...bring on Chicago!!!

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 5:06 pm

not unless KCK becomes part of KCMO

i still think Kansas City Kansas should change from being part of Kansas to being part of Missouri.

SonicBoi · Post by **SonicBoi** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 5:44 pm

KCDevin wrote:not unless KCK becomes part of KCMO
i still think Kansas City Kansas should change from being part of Kansas to being part of Missouri.

That actually can't really happen legally with out major law suits. I think it would be awsome to have one massive downtown area. How large are most cities downtowns? A person I worked with called ours microscopic, but I think he was talking about inside the loop.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:02 pm

if you do math (and a rough estimate) our downtown (as described on main page, would be about 9.16 square kilometers.
so imagine how large downtown would be w/ KCK's downtown,
but wouldn't this divert some companies attention from downtown KCMO to KCK also?

i don't think we really want business' going to KCK instead of KCMO right now...

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:11 pm

This is just a long term plan. Bring the areas together into one massive, cohesive, walkable unit connected by mass transit. KCK would be Downtown West. I'd like to see the river used as the nucleus for this project. Make the grandest riverfront recreation area ever built in the world.

You see the competition because of the state line and divide that exists. But under this new greater downtown area you would see a business locating in KCK the same as a business locating in the Garment District, Crown Center or River Market.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:17 pm

but dont we want KCMO to get the most businesses? we already lost the best ones to Overland Park...

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:19 pm

It doesn't seem possible, given the huge physical separation of bluffs, bottoms, rivers, railroads, factories, etc. It would be impossible to create a unifed streetscape and truly connected neighborhood.

However, I definitely think that downtown KCK could develop into a good compliment to downtown KCMO, and become more of a twin than a neglected nephew. I think it would be good to have an option for residents and companies that want an urban location but prefer or need a Kansas address. Especially with better connections between the two, such as mass transit.

And the success of a rejuvenated downtown KCK does not have to come at the expense of downtown KCMO. There any number of scenarios where a healthy KCK core contributes to the success of the entire urban core, including downtown KCMO. For example, just imagine the possibilities if they had put the T-Bones ballpark in their Downtown - families spending the day at Crown Center and Science City and hopping on mass transit that evening to catch a baseball game in downtown KCK.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:23 pm

what project is the T-Bones ballpark?

another thought... what if KCK had its own MLB team?
Maybe The Royals and the Chiefs?

that would confuse people or the Kansas City Kansans and the Kansas City Royals

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:31 pm

I realize that bridging KC to KCK and creating one greater downtown would take investment in an urban area unseen in the Midwest, but I want to see KC compete with NYC...not Omaha. Think BIG!!!

Devin...he's talking about putting the T-bones(currently next to the Speedway) in downtown KCK. And as for the two MLB teams, I don't see how it'd be any different than the Cubs and White Sox or even the A's and the Giants. KC just isn't a big enough town (yet) to support it. But hopefully we can change that.

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 7:29 pm

Yeah, that's been my idea for years! I'd love to have two skylines within sight of each other- it would be tough to make a walkable city between them, with the Bottoms in the way, but the walking path would be a great start, and hopefully the Lewis and Clark thing in Kansas would help bring people to the area. There is nothing wrong with downtown KCK picking up businesses. Hopefully those would be from outside the metro, but KCK is part of the core, unlike OP, the Northland, and Lees Summit.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 7:38 pm

trailerkid wrote:I don't see how it'd be any different than the Cubs and White Sox or even the A's and the Giants. KC just isn't a big enough town (yet) to support it. But hopefully we can change that.

I'm not very good with math, but I bet it would be several generations before our market is big enough for two teams. Chicago is the smallest market with two MLB teams and they have 7 million in their metro. We have a metro of 1.8 million growing at 1.5% per year.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 8:48 pm

so if you had a choice between a big business in Downtown KCK or it being in Downtown KCMO which would you prefer?
Two skylines would be nice, but KCK would be the size of Clayton's skyline. (mainly in height)

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:02 pm

I would take it in Kansas, to get it jump started. I don't think that KCK's skyline needs to rival KCMO's, but for it to grow to the size of Fort Worth or St. Paul would be a good target.

I'm not very good with math, but I bet it would be several generations before our market is big enough for two teams.

I think we need to worry about keeping the Royals first (which we were worrting about a year or two ago) before thinking about a second team!

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:08 pm

why is everyone afraid of losing the royals? we won't lose them...

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:11 pm

I don't think we will lose them, but we are much, much closer to that end of the majhor league spectrum than we are to the markets who can support two teams. And as we grow, most other cities are also growing. Our metro growth rate is about the best of the non- sun belt or western cities, but that still leaves us in the middle of the pack.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:17 pm

so in 2001 we had 2,700,000
and in 2002 we had 4,050,000
and this year we have 6,075,000 people in our metro?
(sorry for changing subjects?)

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:28 pm

KCDevin wrote:so in 2001 we had 2,700,000
and in 2002 we had 4,050,000
and this year we have 6,075,000 people in our metro?
(sorry for changing subjects?)

What?

KCK will never be a StPaul or Fort Worth.

It will probably never be a Covington or Clayton.

KCK is a blue collar suburb of KCMO and someday should offer nice diverse ethnic neighborhoods if the hispanic or asian areas of the city every get above the poverty line.

KC Metro needs to concentrate on urban KCMO as the primary core of the entire metro area. We already have several competing urban centers in KCMO, something most cities twice our size do not have (plaza, crown center, downtown etc), adding KCK to the list would just spread our city out more.

KCK can become an awsome area if Strawberry Hill or other areas became more like The Hill in StL, but I just don't see it happenig anytime soon.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:31 pm

someone said our metro grows 1.5% in population every year

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:33 pm

KCDevin wrote:someone said our metro grows 1.5% in population every year

you did 150%

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:38 pm

oh lol i was supposed to type in 1.05 wasnt I?

EDIT:
2001: 1,890,000
2002: 1,984,500
2003: 2,083,725
2004: 2,188,121.25
2005: 2,297,527.3125
2006: 2,412,403.678125
2007: 2,533,023.86203125
2008: 2,659,675.0551328125
2009: 2,792,658.807889453125
2010: 2,932,291.74828392578125
2011: 3,078,906.3356981220703125